Peter Tugwell

I might have guessed that a book dedicated to "H.L. Mencken, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Douglas Adams, and the Emperor's New Clothes" would be fun to read. It was! Readers will sense the authors' enthusiasm for their subject on each page, from the preface to the final chapter. The authors prepared this book for "users" rather than "doers" of clinical research. Physicians and others who wish to recognize key clinical epidemiologic features of the diagnosis and management of patients will benefit from reading Clinical Epidemiology. Those who wish to conduct actual research studies will need to look elsewhere for a detailed discussion of clinical epidemiologic methodology. In this review, I will mention

Although protocol registration for systematic reviews is still not mandatory, reviewers should be strongly encouraged to register the protocol to identify the methodological approach, including all outcomes of interest. This will minimize the likelihood of biased decisions in reviews, such as selective outcome reporting. A group of international experts convened to address issues regarding the need to develop hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments for a particular outcome for metaanalyses. Multiple outcome measurement instruments exist to measure the same outcome. Metaanalysis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) trials, and the assessment of pain as an outcome, was used as an exemplar to assess how Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), the Cochrane Collaboration, and other international initiatives might contribute in this area. The meeting began with formal presentations of background topics, empirical evidence from the literature, and a brief introduction to 2 existin...

Decision aids (DAs) are increasingly being developed to help patients make shared health care decisions with their practitioners. There are no formal comparisons of the efficacy of different delivery methods. Interactive computerized delivery methods have the advantage of allowing patients control over flow of information and to receive feedback on their comprehension. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of an interactive computerized DA for women considering long-term hormone replacement therapy, to that of a validated audio-booklet version of the same intervention. Fifty-one peri-menopausal women were randomized to use either the computerized or the standard audio-booklet version of the DA. The computerized version presented identical information with the addition of feedback modules to reinforce the participant’s understanding. The patients were interviewed with a pre- and post-intervention questionnaire. The computerized DA improved realistic expectations by 52...

The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of a continuous combined oral preparation of norethisterone (norethindrone) acetate and ethinylestradiol (NA/EE) [FemHRT] as both a first-line and second-line therapy for menopausal women. Third-party payer. The cost effectiveness of NA/EE was assessed as both a first- and second-line therapy in comparison with conjugated equine oestrogen 0.625mg and medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5mg (CEE/MPA) and no therapy. Analysis was conducted within a Markov model with states relating to the presence and absence of vaginal bleeding, menopausal symptoms and hip fracture. Analysis forecasted life expectancy, QALYs and lifetime costs for a 50-year-old menopausal woman. Compliance was modelled related to menopausal symptoms and vaginal bleeding. For the base-case analysis, it was assumed that compliant women would take therapy for up to 5 years. Sensitivity analysis assumed therapy was taken only for 1 year. Compared with both CEE/MPA and no therapy, NA/EE led to an increase in both costs and QALYs, both as a first- and second-line therapy. For first-line therapy, the incremental cost per QALY gained for NA/EE was $2200 Canadian dollars ($Can; 1999 values) [compared with no therapy] and was $Can20 300 (compared with CEE/MPA). For second-line therapy, the incremental cost per QALY gained for NA/EE was $Can900 (compared with no therapy) and was $Can16 400 (compared with CEE/MPA). Results were robust to most sensitivity analyses. NA/EE is a cost-effective therapy for women with menopausal symptoms both as a first-line and second-line therapy.

To assess the efficacy of fluoride therapy on bone loss, vertebral and non-vertebral fractures and side effects in postmenopausal women. We searched Medline, Current Contents and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Registry up to December 1998. Two independent reviewers selected RCTs which met predetermined inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted data using predetermined forms and assessed the methodological quality of the trials using a validated scale. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risks (RR) were calculated and for continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences (WMD) of percentage change from baseline were calculated. Where heterogeneity existed (determined by a chi-square test) a random effects model was used. Eleven studies (1429 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. The increase in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) was found to be higher in the treatment group than in the control group with a WMD 8.1% (95%CI: 7.15,9.09) after two years of treatment and 16.1%(95%CI: 14.65,17.5) after four years. The RR for new vertebral fractures was not significant at two years [0.87 (95%CI: 0.51,1.46)] or at four years [0.9(95%CI: 0.71,1.14)]. The RR for new non-vertebral fractures was not significant at two years 1.2(95%CI: 0.68,2.1) but was increased at four years in the treated group 1.85(95%CI: 1.36,2.5), especially if used at high doses and in a non slow release form. The RR for gastrointestinal side effects was not significant at two years 2.18(95%CI: 0.86,1.21) but was increased at four years in the treated group 2.18(95%CI: 1.69,4.57) especially if fluoride was used at high doses and in a non slow release form. The number of withdrawals and dropouts was not different between treated and control groups at two and four years. Although fluoride has an ability to increase BMD at lumbar spine, it does not result in a reduction of vertebral fractures. In increasing the dose of fluoride, one increases the risk of non-vertebral fracture and gastrointestinal side effects without any effect on the vertebral fracture rate.

Etanercept is a soluble tumour necrosis factor alpha-receptor disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The purpose of this review was to update the previous Cochrane systematic review published in 2003 assessing the benefits and harms of etanercept for the treatment of RA. In addition, we also evaluated the benefits and harms of etanercept plus DMARD compared with DMARD monotherapy in those people with RA who are partial responders to methotrexate (MTX) or any other traditional DMARD. Five electronic databases were searched from 1966 to February 2003 with no language restriction. The search was updated to January 2012. Attempts were made to identify other studies by contact with experts, searching reference lists and searching trial registers. All controlled trials (minimum 24 weeks' duration) comparing four possible combinations: 1) etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg twice weekly) plus a traditional DMARD (either MTX or sulphasalazine) versus a DMARD, 2) etanercept plus DMARD versus etanercept alone, 3) etanercept alone versus a DMARD or 4) etanercept versus placebo. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. Three trials were included in the original version of the review. An additional six trials, giving a total of 2842 participants, were added to the 2012 update of the review. The trials were generally of moderate to low risk of bias, the majority funded by pharmaceutical companies. Follow-up ranged from six months to 36 months.BenefitAt six to 36 months the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rate was statistically significantly improved with etanercept plus DMARD treatment when compared with a DMARD in those people who had an inadequate response to any traditional DMARD (risk ratio (RR) 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 2.9, absolute treatment benefit (ATB) 38%; 95% CI 13% to 59%) and in those people who were partial responders to MTX (RR 11.7; 95% CI 1.7 to 82.5, ATB 36%). Similar results were observed when pooling data from all participants (responders or not) (ACR 50 response rates at 24 months: RR 1.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.8, ATB 29%; 36 months: RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.3 to 1.9, ATB 24%). Statistically significant improvement in physical function and a higher proportion of disease remission were observed in combination-treated participants compared with DMARDs alone ((mean difference (MD) -0.36; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.28 in a 0-3 scale) and (RR 1.92; 95% CI 1.60 to 2.31), respectively) in those people who had an inadequate response to any traditional DMARD. All changes in radiographic scores were statistically significantly less with combination treatment (etanercept plus DMARD) compared with MTX alone for all participants (responders or not) (Total Sharp Score (TSS) (scale = 0 to 448): MD -2.2, 95% CI -3.0 to -1.4; Erosion Score (ES) (scale = 0 to 280): MD -1.6; 95% CI -2.4 to -0.9; Joint Space Narrowing Score (JSNS) (scale = 0 to 168): MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2), and with combination treatment compared with etanercept alone (TSS: MD -1.1; 95% CI -1.8 to -0.5; ES: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2; JSNS: MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2). The estimate of irreversible physical disability over 10 years given the radiographic findings was 0.45 out of 3.0.When etanercept monotherapy was compared with DMARD monotherapy, there was generally no evidence of a difference in ACR50 response rates when etanercept 10 mg or 25 mg was used; at six months etanercept 25 mg was significantly more likely to achieve ACR50 than DMARD monotherapy but this difference was not found at 12, 24 or 36 months. TSS and ES radiographic scores were statistically significantly improved with etanercept 25 mg monotherapy compared with DMARD (TSS: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.4 to 0.1; ES: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.0 to -0.3) but there was no evidence of a statistically significant difference between etanercept 10 mg monotherapy and MTX.HarmsThere was no evidence of statistically significant differences in infections or serious infections between etanercept plus DMARD and DMARD alone at any point in time. Infection rates were higher in people receiving etanercept monotherapy compared with DMARD; however, there were no differences regarding serious infections. For those participants who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, the rate of total withdrawals was lower for the etanercept plus DMARD group compared with DMARD alone (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.77, ATB 18%). No other statistically significant differences were observed in any of the assessed comparisons. Etanercept 25 mg administered subcutaneously twice weekly together with MTX was more efficacious than either etanercept or MTX monotherapy for ACR50 and it slowed joint radiographic…

1. Lancet. 1996 Jul 6;348(9019):4-5. Raised ESR in polymyalgia rheumatica no longer a sine qua non? Ortiz Z, Tugwell P. Department of Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital, Ontario, Canada. Comment in Lancet. 1996 Aug 24;348(9026):550. Lancet. ...

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic inflammatory autoimmune disease that results in the destruction of the musculoskeletal system. The major goals of treatment are to relieve pain, reduce inflammation, slow down or stop joint damage, prevent disability, and preserve or improve the person's sense of well-being and ability to function. Tai Chi, interchangeably known as Tai Chi Chuan, is an ancient Chinese health-promoting martial art form that has been recognized in China as an effective arthritis therapy for centuries. To assess the effectiveness and safety of Tai Chi as a treatment for people with RA. We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, Pedro and CINAHL databases up to September 2002, using the Cochrane Collaboration search strategy for randomised controlled trials. We also searched the Chinese Biomedical Database up to December 2003 and the Beijing Chinese Academy of Traditional Medicine up to December 2003. Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials examining the benefits and harms of exercise programs with Tai Chi instruction or incorporating principles of Tai Chi philosophy were selected. We included control groups who received no therapy, sham therapy or another type of therapy. Two reviewers determined the studies to be included in this review, rated the methodological quality and extracted data using standardized forms. Four trials including 206 participants, were included in this review. Tai Chi-based exercise programs had no clinically important or statistically significant effect on most outcomes of disease activity, which included activities of daily living, tender and swollen joints and patient global overall rating. For range of motion, Tai Chi participants had statistically significant and clinically important improvements in ankle plantar flexion. No detrimental effects were found. One study found that compared to people who participated in traditional ROM exercise/rest programs those in a Tai Chi dance program reported a significantly higher level of participation in and enjoyment of exercise both immediately and four months after completion of the Tai Chi program. The results suggest Tai Chi does not exacerbate symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis. In addition, Tai Chi has statistically significant benefits on lower extremity range of motion, in particular ankle range of motion, for people with RA. The included studies did not assess the effects on patient-reported pain.

Etanercept is a soluble tumour necrosis factor alpha-receptor disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The purpose of this review was to update the previous Cochrane systematic review published in 2003 assessing the benefits and harms of etanercept for the treatment of RA. In addition, we also evaluated the benefits and harms of etanercept plus DMARD compared with DMARD monotherapy in those people with RA who are partial responders to methotrexate (MTX) or any other traditional DMARD. Five electronic databases were searched from 1966 to February 2003 with no language restriction. The search was updated to January 2012. Attempts were made to identify other studies by contact with experts, searching reference lists and searching trial registers. All controlled trials (minimum 24 weeks' duration) comparing four possible combinations: 1) etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg twice weekly) plus a traditional DMARD (either MTX or sulphasalazine) versus a DMARD, 2) etanercept plus DMARD versus etanercept alone, 3) etanercept alone versus a DMARD or 4) etanercept versus placebo. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. Three trials were included in the original version of the review. An additional six trials, giving a total of 2842 participants, were added to the 2012 update of the review. The trials were generally of moderate to low risk of bias, the majority funded by pharmaceutical companies. Follow-up ranged from six months to 36 months.BenefitAt six to 36 months the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rate was statistically significantly improved with etanercept plus DMARD treatment when compared with a DMARD in those people who had an inadequate response to any traditional DMARD (risk ratio (RR) 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 2.9, absolute treatment benefit (ATB) 38%; 95% CI 13% to 59%) and in those people who were partial responders to MTX (RR 11.7; 95% CI 1.7 to 82.5, ATB 36%). Similar results were observed when pooling data from all participants (responders or not) (ACR 50 response rates at 24 months: RR 1.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.8, ATB 29%; 36 months: RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.3 to 1.9, ATB 24%). Statistically significant improvement in physical function and a higher proportion of disease remission were observed in combination-treated participants compared with DMARDs alone ((mean difference (MD) -0.36; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.28 in a 0-3 scale) and (RR 1.92; 95% CI 1.60 to 2.31), respectively) in those people who had an inadequate response to any traditional DMARD. All changes in radiographic scores were statistically significantly less with combination treatment (etanercept plus DMARD) compared with MTX alone for all participants (responders or not) (Total Sharp Score (TSS) (scale = 0 to 448): MD -2.2, 95% CI -3.0 to -1.4; Erosion Score (ES) (scale = 0 to 280): MD -1.6; 95% CI -2.4 to -0.9; Joint Space Narrowing Score (JSNS) (scale = 0 to 168): MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2), and with combination treatment compared with etanercept alone (TSS: MD -1.1; 95% CI -1.8 to -0.5; ES: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2; JSNS: MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2). The estimate of irreversible physical disability over 10 years given the radiographic findings was 0.45 out of 3.0.When etanercept monotherapy was compared with DMARD monotherapy, there was generally no evidence of a difference in ACR50 response rates when etanercept 10 mg or 25 mg was used; at six months etanercept 25 mg was significantly more likely to achieve ACR50 than DMARD monotherapy but this difference was not found at 12, 24 or 36 months. TSS and ES radiographic scores were statistically significantly improved with etanercept 25 mg monotherapy compared with DMARD (TSS: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.4 to 0.1; ES: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.0 to -0.3) but there was no evidence of a statistically significant difference between etanercept 10 mg monotherapy and MTX.HarmsThere was no evidence of statistically significant differences in infections or serious infections between etanercept plus DMARD and DMARD alone at any point in time. Infection rates were higher in people receiving etanercept monotherapy compared with DMARD; however, there were no differences regarding serious infections. For those participants who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, the rate of total withdrawals was lower for the etanercept plus DMARD group compared with DMARD alone (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.77, ATB 18%). No other statistically significant differences were observed in any of the assessed comparisons. Etanercept 25 mg administered subcutaneously twice weekly together with MTX was more efficacious than either etanercept or MTX monotherapy for ACR50 and it slowed joint radiographic…

To determine the effects of available pharmacological interventions in treating the different clinical features of Behcet's syndrome. We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Medline up to January 1998. The computer search was complemented by a hand search of all bibliographic references from the reference lists of included trials. Principal investigators were contacted to seek unpublished literature. All languages were included. Studies were eligible if they fulfilled all of the four following criteria: 1. Randomized controlled trials, single or double-blind; 2. Participants were patients with Behcet's Syndrome as defined by the International Study Group, 1990 (Int Study Group, 1990); 3. Interventions included any pharmacological therapy compared to placebo or some other pharmacological intervention for the treatment of Behcet's syndrome. 4. Outcome measures included active ocular inflammatory processes, arthritis, mucocutaneous manifestations (oral ulcer, genital ulcer, erythema nodosum), laboratory changes and major events such as adverse effects and death. The 32 potentially relevant references were assessed by two independent reviewers (MA, AS) according to the inclusion criteria. Ten trials fit the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. From the 10 included trials, data were independently extracted by the same two observers and crosschecked. The quality of the included trials was assessed independently by two observers (MA, AS) using a validated scale (Jadad 1996). For dichotomous measures, the treatment effect for each trial was calculated using a fixed effect model [Peto model (Petitti 1994)]. The weighted mean differences were based, if available, on end-of-trial results. The analysis was conducted separately for each different intervention. Since the trials could not be pooled it was not possible to carry out a sensitivity analysis by quality scores or a subgroup analysis by drug dosages. Because of this lack of comparability across trials and the small number of trials, we could not conduct a heterogeneity test or a funnel plot. Ten trials and 679 patients were included. The main results were the lack of efficacy of some of the classic treatments for Behcet's syndrome, including colchicine, cyclophosphamide and steroids for eye involvement, azapropazone and colchicine for arthritis and acyclovir, colchicine and topical interpheron for aphthas. The results confirm the protective effects of cyclosporine and azathioprine for eye involvement and benzathine-penicillin for arthritis. We conclude that further randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials should be carried out to compare cyclosporine, azathioprine and benzathine-penicillin versus placebo in order to make the results generalizable and comparable.